Court’s Decision
In the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao) allowed the appeal filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court set aside the award of ₹105/- per sq.ft. passed by the Reference Court and enhanced it to ₹150/- per sq.ft. for 29 guntas of land acquired in Survey No. 111/1 of Sominakoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk and District. The enhanced compensation is to carry all statutory benefits, including interest under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Court held that since the present acquisition was made under the same notification and related to the same village and survey number as earlier adjudicated cases, parity in compensation must be ensured.
Facts
The appeal arose out of a challenge to the award dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga. The dispute concerned 29 guntas of land situated in Survey No. 111/1 of Sominakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk. This land had been acquired for the Upper Tunga Project by the Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited.
The Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of ₹105/- per sq.ft. Dissatisfied with this valuation, the legal heirs of the original landowner approached the High Court, contending that other landowners in the same village and under the same acquisition notification had been awarded ₹150/- per sq.ft. in earlier litigation.
Issues
- Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation at ₹150/- per sq.ft. for their acquired land when similarly placed landowners had received that rate?
- Whether the principle of judicial consistency and parity applied when the acquisition notification, location, and land characteristics were identical?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants contended that the Reference Court had committed a grave error in awarding only ₹105/- per sq.ft. They pointed out that and connected matters, compensation for lands situated in the same village and survey number acquired under the same notification had been enhanced by the High Court to ₹150/- per sq.ft.
Further, it was submitted that this enhancement had been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court had affirmed the enhancement, thereby confirming that ₹150/- per sq.ft. was the correct market value for such lands. Copies of the Supreme Court orders were produced before the High Court to support the claim.
The appellants argued that denying them similar compensation would amount to discrimination and violate the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated landowners.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer, Upper Tunga Project, Shivamogga, sought to defend the award passed by the Reference Court. However, they did not place any material on record to show that the land in the present case was different in nature or acquisition context from those in the previously decided matters. No factual or legal distinction was demonstrated to justify a lower rate of compensation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that compensation must be determined based on the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4. The Court emphasized that where multiple acquisitions occur under the same notification for lands similarly situated, the valuation must be consistent unless there are specific distinguishing features.
The doctrine of parity requires that once compensation for land under a particular acquisition scheme is judicially settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the same rate must apply to other landowners in identical circumstances.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the earlier judgment and connected cases, where the High Court had awarded ₹150/- per sq.ft. for lands in the same survey number and village acquired under the same notification. It observed that the same was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the Apex Court had affirmed the judgment.
Thus, the Court held that the matter was fully covered by precedent, and deviation would violate the principle of uniformity in judicial decision-making.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court, after examining the facts and precedents, stated:
“We notice that this Court and connected cases has granted enhanced compensation at the rate of ₹150/- per sq.ft in respect of the properties acquired under the very same notification from the very same village… the said grant of compensation… has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court…”
“In view of the fact that the acquisition is under the same notification and the land covered in this appeal is in Sy.No.111/1 of Sominakoppa village… and since the matters are identical, the appellants herein are also entitled to compensation at the same rate.”
The Court concluded that any deviation from the earlier judgments would be unjustified and contrary to the rule of law.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court passed the following directions:
- Appeal allowed.
- Compensation for the acquired land fixed at ₹150/- per sq.ft. for the 29 guntas in Survey No. 111/1 of Sominakoppa Village.
- Statutory benefits and interest applicable to the enhanced amount are to be granted.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated landowners in land acquisition proceedings. It emphasizes that once a judicial determination of fair compensation is made and upheld by the Supreme Court, the same must be applied uniformly. It also discourages fragmented and unequal treatment by Land Acquisition Officers or lower courts in identical factual scenarios.
Moreover, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring consistency in compensation awards when acquisitions are made under the same notification and for the same public project.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Rejects Arbitration in Kotak-Samruddhi Dispute